TV's: Better to go widescreen or regular 4:3 ratio?

[pyrate83]

Ok, I'm back on my TV hunt again because I get gift certificates through work that add up quickly and I can use them online. Anyway, what's the better way to go here. Widescreen or full screen, I'm having trouble deciding which is best for me. I watch movies on a regular basis but I watch more regular TV than movies and I only play video games once or twice a week. What are the real differences, pros and cons between widescreen and full screen?

PS, I'm also looking at LCD TV's instead of the conventional CRT's.

[Hardcoreruss]

Over in the States you guys seem to lean towards 4:3 as opposed to 16:9.

I actually cannot think of a friend who does not have a widescreen set. Also I would not waste money by purchasing a new tech lcd in an old aspect.

[yoda313]

Hello,

I saw a cnet article awhile back saying tube hdtv is still better.

Go with HDTV. You can get a 30 inch for $1000 or so if you hunt around. (make sure you get a hdtv tuner ).

Kevin
--and get a new progressive scan dvd player with dvi output - my brother inlaw has hdtv but no dvi output on his dvd player and is wishing he had one ---

[flaninacupboard]

widescreen every time. my room is about the right size for a 21" 4:3 set, so i bought a 32" wide set. 4:3 material is still displayed at 21"

More and more TV is 16:9 now anyway, it's very rare to see a UK programme in 4:3, just some of your yankie stuff. even that is improving though, stuf like stargate and battlestar galactica is coming in as 16:9, even malcolm in the middle is 16:9 now!

[yoda313]

Hello,

even malcolm in the middle is 16:9 now

Oh yippee.... I can hardly wait to get a hdtv for THAT!

Now stargate yeah....

Kevin

[flaninacupboard]

you don't need a hdtv to have widescreen, the two are seperate issues......

[yoda313]

you don't need a hdtv to have widescreen, the two are seperate issues......

Hello,

Yeah but 16:9 is anamorphic widescreen, not fixed..... The widescreen you get off of standard is hardcoded.... You need hdtv to resize it properly...

Kevin

[gshelley61]

I've had a Samsung 16:9 DLP HDTV for nearly two years now, and love it. Awesome picture, and no burn-in issues to deal with if you run 4:3 material frequently or are a gamer (game graphics can cause burn-in, too).

[pyrate83]

I guess my only problem is that I have two big tower speakers that sit next to my TV and cabinet now and I just don't want to have issues with getting the speakers too close since they are not shielded.

[yoda313]

I guess my only problem is that I have two big tower speakers that sit next to my TV and cabinet now and I just don't want to have issues with getting the speakers too close since they are not shielded.

Hello,

So??? Just weld huge pieces of iron over them... (that should do the trick )

Kevin

[gshelley61]

DLP and LCD TV's are not affected by speaker magnets. Only CRT direct view sets have that problem.

[flaninacupboard]

you don't need a hdtv to have widescreen, the two are seperate issues......

Hello,

Yeah but 16:9 is anamorphic widescreen, not fixed..... The widescreen you get off of standard is hardcoded.... You need hdtv to resize it properly...

Kevin

No.....

You just use a digital receiver that outputs in 16:9.

Freeview outputs a lovely picture onto my wide set through normal RGB connection. it's digital, it's widescreen, it's anamorphic, but it's not HD .

[Doramius]

Get as big of TV for as little cost as possible. Don't go LCD if you're going 4:3 ratio either. Widescreen is great, but there is demand for it and they are often more pricey. I found a WS CRT 32" for $879 and a 4:3 46" rear projection for $799. Same name brand too. Where would you make the judgement call? I'd tell you I'll be bringing home the rear projection.

[pyrate83]

What brand would you guys consider to be a good choice. I'm looking at Sony, Toshiba, Zenith, Philips, and maybe Samsung although I'm not as interested in Samsung since my current TV has had so many problems but I'm willing to try again if you guys think it's a good brand. Also all the TV's I'm looking at are LCD TV's 23"-30".

I've decided I want to go to flat screen.

[ViRaL1]

Bang for the buck (viewable screen per dollar) you'd probably get more out of a Samsung DLP than LCD, plasma is also cheaper if I'm not mistaken.

[RickTheRed]

Sony is surfing on their reputation. Ask any good and honest vendor (just assume it exists) and he will tell you to buy something else that has the same quality for less $$.

Toshiba / Panasonic are pretty good.

[pyrate83]

Thanks.

[Craig Tucker]

Given the choice I would definately go for a phillips. They make great TV sets.

[glockjs]

welp, everything is turning towards widescreen. so you cant fight that. in my opinion toshiba has always been the best. they have always proven themselves in my opinion....

[Doramius]

Phillips-Magnavox plasma might be more of what you're looking for then. Samsung is on the low end of name brand. Sony is pricey. RCA is decent, but the plasmas don't seem to have the quality thier CRTs have, as in durability and working reliability. Emerson is comparable to RCA. Zenith are on the ball with plasma and LCD lately.

[Guest]

16:9 all day. I watch a lot of programing streched from 4:3 to wide. I dont even notice distortion. I would get a smaller HD than a bigger conventional for the same price. Nothing beats HD.

[Doramius]

I've seen top quality in standard TVs. They used to have it with Cable. Now there's intentional degradation of signals going on to get people to switch to the more expensive HD and digital equipment. If you want to check out matching performance, get a CGI DVD. The one I have is ANIMUSIC. I watched it side by side with a HD TV and a regular TV. Both came out crystal clear and great. The DVD is what many would consider SUPERBIT and made for HD. I didn't even notice difference in clarity. The only thing that irked my friend was the fact that it had black bars. When he told me that's what he was annoyed with, I wanted to smack his head with a brick.